ReviewBiomarkers in medicine2021
Screening for regenerative therapy responders in heart failure.
Review in Biomarkers in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cell Therapy Improves Quality-of-Life in Heart Failure: Outcomes From a Phase III Clinical Trial.Stem cells translational medicine · 2024Trial
- Maturation of human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes promoted by Brachyury priming.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence powers regenerative medicine into predictive realm.Regenerative medicine · 2024Review
- Modern regenerative medicine dictionary: an augmented guide to biotherapy.Regenerative medicine · 2023Article
- Regeneration of the heart: from molecular mechanisms to clinical therapeutics.Military Medical Research · 2023Review
- A primer onFrontiers in medicine · 2023Review
- Mass Customized Outlook for Regenerative Heart Failure Care.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Longevity leap: mind the healthspan gap.NPJ Regenerative medicine · 2021Review
- Regenerative medicine clinical readiness.Regenerative medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Risk of outcome variability challenges therapeutic innovation. Selection of the most suitable candidates is predicated on reliable response indicators. Especially for emergent regenerative biotherapies, determinants separating success from failure in achieving disease rescue remain largely unknown. Accordingly, (pre)clinical development programs have placed increased emphasis on the multi-dimensional decoding of repair capacity and disease resolution, attributes defining responsiveness. To attain regenerative goals for each individual, phenotype-based patient selection is poised for an upgrade guided by new insights into disease biology, translated into refined surveillance of response regulators and deep learning-amplified clinical decision support.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.